schnaufer.com
Home ] Up ] Google ] 4thBriefWriting.pdf ] LSBA-2006-5th ] ICLEF ] [ PhillyCLE ] DickinsonCLE ] OmahaCLE ] DesMoinesCLE ] Atlanta ] GridLite ] ChicagoCLE ] San Diego ] Dickinson2005CLE ] LasVegas ]

 

Sample-1-EAJA-Motion
Sample-2-EAJA-Motion
Sample-3-EAJA-Reply
Sample-4-406-Motion
NM EAJA COLA

Fees for Social Security Litigation

November 12, 2004 NOSSCR Conference

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

[Last updated November 10, 2004]

©Eric Schnaufer

I.    Introduction

    Attorneys may receive attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), and the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), for representing claimants in civil litigation. This workshop summarizes how to obtain reasonable EAJA fees and reasonable fees under the Social Security Act for civil litigation. The workshop provides concrete guidance for practitioners during all phases of civil litigation. The workshop suggests how to prepare fee applications that withstand judicial review and that minimize whenever possible the time expended in fee litigation. The workshop explains that while there is no one-size-fits-all EAJA or 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) application, an attorney should make conscious choices when drafting every application regarding what evidence and arguments to include in the application. See, generally, Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789 (2002).

    An expanded and updated version of this workshop with links is at http://www.schnaufer.com/philly.htm. Additional materials include sample EAJA applications, sample § 406(b) motions, and sample EAJA reply briefs. General information about the EAJA is found at http://www.schnaufer.com/eaja.htm.

    In EAJA and § 406(b) litigation as in all other litigation, there are Circuit-specific cases, local rules, and orders in individual cases. For the obvious reason, a Circuit case, local rule, or order in an individual case should normally control. The workshop neither suggests nor implies that a litigant should violate any Circuit case, local rule, or order in an individual case. Instead, workshop includes the universal caveat that there may be controlling authority or guidance not discussed at the workshop.

II.    Resources

28 U.S.C. § 2412 (Cornell)

42 U.S.C. § 406 (socialsecurity.gov)

42 U.S.C. §1383 (socialsecurity.gov)

POMS

www.ssa.gov/representation/

http://www.bls.gov/cpi/home.htm

NOSSCR Social Security Forum

Thomas E. Bush, Social Security Disability Practice (2004) (James Publishing), Chapter 7

http://www.schnaufer.com/Gisbrecht.htm

http://www.schnaufer.com/eaja.htm

Social Security Advisory Board, Disability Decision Making: Data and Materials (Jan. 2001) at 86 (ssab.gov) (statistics showing risk of loss).

III.    Sample Documents

See upper left of this page.

IV.    Recent Developments

Public Law 108-203 (text) (PDF)

Scarborough v. Principi, 124 S. Ct. 1856 (2004) (supremecourtus.gov) (FindLaw).

V.    Equal Access to Justice Act

   [FORTHCOMING AFTER WORKSHOP]

VI.    Fees Court Court Work Under the Social Security Act

   [FORTHCOMING AFTER WORKSHOP]

 

Eric Schnaufer, Attorney at Law, Eric Schnaufer's e-mail address
©2000-2006 Eric Schnaufer